810 S.E.2d 848
S.C.2018Background
- In 2012 the Eades filed a Notice of Intent (NOI) for malpractice after Johnny Eades’ 2009 treatment for left iliac artery occlusion/aneurysm; two days later they identified Dr. Paul Skudder as an expert and filed his affidavit.
- Defendants, including Palmetto Primary Care Physicians, LLC and Trident Emergency Physicians, LLC (employers of Drs. Campbell and Wallen), moved to dismiss the NOI.
- The trial court granted dismissal, holding (1) the expert affidavit had to comply with section 15-36-100 contemporaneously with the NOI and (2) Skudder’s affidavit was deficient because it did not show he practiced in the same specialty as Campbell and Wallen.
- The Court of Appeals reversed under Ranucci v. Crain, concluding §15-79-125 permits filing the expert affidavit later, and declined to address affidavit sufficiency as unpreserved.
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari, held the preservation question was met, and considered whether Skudder’s affidavit satisfied §15-36-100(A).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the sufficiency of the expert affidavit was preserved for appeal | Preservation satisfied because motion to dismiss raised affidavit sufficiency and trial court ruled on it | Issue not preserved (Court of Appeals) | Preserved: petitioners timely raised and the trial court ruled on the issue |
| Whether §15-36-100(A) requires the expert to practice in the same specialty as the defendant doctor | Skudder’s affidavit met statutory requirements under §15-36-100(A)(3) by showing specialized knowledge relevant to vascular/aneurysm issues | Affidavit defective because Skudder is a vascular/critical care surgeon, not in primary care/emergency medicine like Campbell/Wallen | Held that §15-36-100(A)(3) permits an expert who lacks the same specialty so long as affidavit explains credentials and specialized knowledge that will assist the trier of fact; Skudder’s affidavit satisfied (A)(3) |
Key Cases Cited
- Ranucci v. Crain, 409 S.C. 493, 763 S.E.2d 189 (S.C. 2014) (§15-79-125 may incorporate §15-36-100 safe-harbor/extension where limitations are at risk)
- Grier v. AMISUB of S.C., Inc., 397 S.C. 532, 725 S.E.2d 693 (S.C. 2012) (statutes restricting common-law rights must be strictly construed)
- Epstein v. Coastal Timber Co., 393 S.C. 276, 711 S.E.2d 912 (S.C. 2011) (same rule on strict construction of statutes in derogation of common law)
- Crosby v. Glasscock Trucking Co., 340 S.C. 626, 532 S.E.2d 856 (S.C. 2000) (statutes limiting rights not to be extended beyond legislative intent)
- S.C. Dep’t of Transp. v. First Carolina Corp. of S.C., 372 S.C. 295, 641 S.E.2d 903 (S.C. 2007) (preservation rule: issue must be timely raised with specificity and ruled on by trial court)